In a case where Gap et al. entered into a franchise agreement with Eul et al. to operate a franchise store using Eul's business mark after receiving an estimated sales calculation statement from Eul et al. for the sale of ice water and DNA products, and subsequently closed the franchise store, and Gap et al. sought compensation against Eul et al. for damages caused by illegal acts, such as deception related to anticipated sales, the case holding that Eul's issuance of an estimated sales statement entered in the name of omission of major matters or false or exaggerated contents constitutes a tort in violation of Article 9 (1) 1 of the Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act, and thus, Eul et al.'s liability for damages is limited to the expenses paid by Eul et al. for the establishment of a franchise store.

After Gap et al. received a letter of estimation of estimated sales from Eul Co., Ltd. to run a franchise business for the sale of ice water and DNA products, they concluded a franchise agreement with Eul Co., Ltd. to operate a franchise store using Eul's business mark and closed the franchise store. After doing so, Gap et al. sought damages from Eul Co., Ltd. due to illegal acts, such as deception of expected sales.

The case holding that since the maximum amount of sales converted into sales of neighboring franchise stores was calculated on the basis of daily average sales at the time of concluding a franchise agreement, not the daily average sales at the time of immediately preceding business year, but the minimum sales were calculated on the basis of daily average sales of neighboring franchise stores nationwide franchise stores, the scope of conversion into sales in the immediately preceding franchise store stated in the estimated sales statement constitutes false information, and since it appears that Eul company's estimated sales explained to Gap et al. were sufficiently calculated without comparing and analyzing the size and location of the store Gap et al. and its neighboring franchise stores, it was difficult to view that Eul's act was committed in violation of Article 9 (1) 1 of the Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act, and thus, it was difficult to deem that Eul et al.'s act was committed in the course of concluding the franchise agreement as losses incurred by Gap et al. due to the above illegal acts or omission of expenses incurred by Gap et al. in the course of concluding the franchise agreement.

Articles 9, 37(3) (see current Articles 37(3) and 37-2) of the former Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act (Amended by Act No. 14135, Mar. 29, 2016); Articles 8 and 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25840, Dec. 9, 2014); Articles 56(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act; Articles 393, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Lins, Attorneys Lee Han-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below] Defendant 1 and 1 other

June 27, 2019

1. The Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff 1 5% interest per annum from March 9, 2019 to September 26, 2019; and 12% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; 79,892,286 interest per annum; 5% interest per annum from May 17, 2019 to September 26, 2019 to the date of full payment; and 12% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 3/5 of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 248,147,406 won, 320,717,247 won, and 15% interest per annum from the following day to the date of the delivery of a copy of the application for amendment of the purport of the claim and supplement of the cause of the claim as of March 6, 2019 with respect to the plaintiff 1, and from the following day to the date of the delivery of a copy of the application for amendment of the purpose of claim and cause of the claim as of May 15, 2019 with respect to the plaintiff 2, 5% per annum and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a stock company established for franchise business, etc., and is running franchise business (hereinafter “the franchise business in this case”) related to the sale of ice water and DNA products with the business mark (hereinafter “instant business mark”), and the Plaintiffs are franchise business operators who are granted the right of operation of “○○○ △△△△△△△△△ (Plaintiff 1 operation; hereinafter “Plaintiff 1 franchise”)” and “○ ○○ △△△△△△○ (hereinafter “instant 2 franchise store”)” and “○ ○○ △△△△△△△○” (hereinafter “the instant 2 franchise store”). Meanwhile, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 are external consulting business operators who are delegated by the Defendant to recruit franchise operators related to the instant franchising business as well as the right of use of the said business mark as follows.

B. On July 21, 2014, Plaintiff 1 received a written statement of estimated sales from the Defendant to the instant 1 franchise store (hereinafter “written statement of estimated sales calculation”). On August 7, 2014, Plaintiff 1 leased 150,000,000, KRW 2,800,000, KRW 150,000, KRW 150,000, KRW 2,80,000, KRW 2,80,000, and Plaintiff 1 entered into the franchise agreement with the Defendant through Nonparty 1 using the instant business mark to operate the instant 1 franchise store (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”).

원고 2는 2014. 7. 22. 소외 4로부터 인천 연수구 (주소 2 생략) ◎◎◎◎◎ ◁◁◁호 및 ▷▷▷호(전용면적 합계 약 264㎡, 이하 ‘이 사건 제2 점포’라 한다)를 보증금 60,000,000원, 차임 월 4,300,000원에 임차하고, 2014. 8. 6. 피고로부터 이 사건 제2 가맹점에 대한 예상매출액 산정서(이하 ‘이 사건 제2 예상매출액 산정서’라 한다)를 교부받은 다음, 2014. 8. 14. 위 소외 2를 통하여 피고와 사이에 원고 2가 이 사건 가맹사업의 가맹사업자로서 이 사건 영업표지를 사용하여 이 사건 제2 점포에서 이 사건 제2 가맹점을 운영하기로 하는 내용의 가맹계약(이하 ‘이 사건 제2 가맹계약’이라 한다)을 체결하였다.

C. From September 2014 to February 2, 2017, Plaintiff 1 closed the operation of the instant first franchise store, and during the said period, the monthly sales of the instant first franchise store (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) are as follows.

22,376,600,96,500,573, 2500, 20,934, 500 22,378, 1022,09,091,050 on January 2, 2014, December 2015, 2015, which was included in the main sentence, on September 2014, 2014;

On March 2015, 2015, April 2015, 2015, the monthly sales (cost) of August 2015, 2015, July 2015, 23,089,400, 24,700,500, 42,314, 36, 288, 500, 400, 162, 100, 45,969,100

On September 2015, 2015, which was included in the main sentence, on September 2015, 2015, December 2015, 20, 20,970,50,500,949,2009,940,300 12,868,400,163,400, 10,852,10,000,00 on February 2016, 2015, December 2015, 2016

The monthly sales (won) on July 2016, 2016, July 2016, 2016, as of March 2016, 2016, included in the main sentence, on March 4, 2016, 1,1867,000 13,878,878,800 23,272,700 27,376,376,400 42,03,013,1047,49,700

On September 2016, 2016, which was included in the main sentence, on September 2016, 2016, the monthly sales (cost) 16,55,500,508,799,6906,691,300,7895,8007,025,000,0008,000,060,000 on February 2, 2016, December 2016, 2017.

The monthly sales (cost) 16,55,500 8,799,900 6,691,300 on May 2017, 2017, April 2017, contained in the main sentence, March 2017

From September 2014 to August 2016, Plaintiff 2 closed the instant member shop, and during the said period, Plaintiff 2’s monthly sales of the instant member store are as follows.

The monthly sales (cost) of December 2015, 2015, January 2011, 2014, which was included in the main sentence, on September 2014, 2014; 22,86,50; 24,125, 200, 24,295,90,90 on December 201, 2015, as follows:

On March 2015, April 2015, 2015, included in the main sentence of the attached business, on April 2015, 2015: 23,718,718,000 22,236,500 37,458,200 38,039,00 38,175,600 45,224,400,400 on August 2015, 2015.

On September 2015, 2015, which was included in the main sentence, on December 2015, 2015, the monthly sales (cost) 25,01,500 13,262,500 12,416,800 16,865,900 13,47,90 13,544,600,6060 on February 2015, 2015, December 2015, 2016

The monthly sales (won) on July 2016, 2016, July 2016, 2016, as of March 2016, 2016, included in the main sentence, on March 3, 2016, 12,578,600, 13,275,600, 19,904, 300 24,05,05, 600 37,218, 400, 471,800

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to a claim for damages caused by a tort

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

1) Determination as to the assertion regarding the recruitment of member stores through real estate brokers

A) The Plaintiffs: (a) Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 (hereinafter “Nonindicted 1, etc.”) (hereinafter “Nonindicted 1, etc.”) who was a real estate bromoer, not an employee affiliated with the Defendant, had the Defendant engage in good conduct, which is an employee affiliated with the Defendant; and (b) accused Nonparty 1, etc. of the Plaintiffs; and (c) had Nonparty 1, etc. act as an employee affiliated with the Defendant,

B) According to the statement No. 2, it is recognized that Nonparty 1 introduced himself to Plaintiff 1 as “Defendant Franchise Team/chief” during the process of entering into the instant 1 franchise agreement.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that Nonparty 1, etc. was a real estate hub, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. In addition, Articles 2 subparag. 8 and 7(1) of the Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act (amended by Act No. 12094, Aug. 13, 2013; hereinafter “Franchis Business Act”) provide for a franchise broker and provide for a provision on a franchise broker, thereby premised on the legitimacy of the act of a third party soliciting franchise traders on behalf of the franchisor. Thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to constitute a tort solely on the ground that the Defendant did not explicitly state such circumstance to the Plaintiffs while recruiting Nonparty 1, etc. as a franchise broker. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ aforementioned assertion is without merit.

2) Determination as to the assertion that coercion had been forced regarding the selection of location

Although the Plaintiffs asserted that Nonparty 1, etc. refused the store location proposed by the Plaintiffs and forced the Plaintiffs to rent each of the instant stores, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the fact that each of the items of evidence Nos. 55 through 61 was insufficient, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the overall purport of the statement and arguments Nos. 3, 12 and No. 2, Plaintiff 1 leased the instant store. After the lease of the instant 1 store, Plaintiff 2, etc. from the above Nonparty 1, etc. prior to the lease of the instant 2 store, Plaintiff 2, etc., as of the day before the lease of the instant 2 store, “the person who selects the store location of the franchise is a franchisor, and the franchisor’s store development team was a prospective franchisee through the field survey and other market analysis. However, if the prospective franchisee did not consent, it is possible to determine a new location. However, according to the reasoning of the Plaintiffs’ assertion that each of the instant stores was opened as the place of each of the instant stores.

3) Determination on the assertion of deception regarding expected sales

A) Relevant statutes

The relevant provisions of the Franchise Business Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25175, Feb. 11, 2014; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Franchise Business Act”) that were in force at the time of the instant franchise agreement are as follows:

(4) Where the total amount of annual sales of a franchiser does not exceed the amount prescribed by Presidential Decree within the extent of 100,000 won" means the minimum amount of sales of the franchisee and the store of the same prospective franchisees under the main sentence of Article 3 (1) of the Franchise Business Act. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), the provisions of this Act shall apply only to cases where the number of franchisees who have entered into a contract with the franchiser is at least the number prescribed by Presidential Decree within the range of five or more times.

In full view of the relevant provisions of the Franchise Business Act, even if the defendant, as alleged by the defendant, is not a franchiser of the size stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 9(5) of the Franchise Business Act, and the defendant does not have the obligation to provide the plaintiffs with a statement of calculation of estimated sales under the above provision, the defendant shall not be exempted from the obligation to provide in writing the forecast profits calculated on the basis of objective grounds under each subparagraph of Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Franchise Business Act when providing information on expected future profits, such as estimated sales, profits, gross profit, and net profit, etc. under Article 9(1) of the same Act and Articles 8(1) and 9(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

B) Facts of recognition

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the above evidence and the statements and the purport of the whole pleadings as stated in the evidence Nos. 2, 10, and 14:

(1) At the time of entering into the instant franchise agreement, the store in Gyeonggi-do, which is the administrative district to which the first store of this case belongs among the franchise stores of this case, was “○○○○ (name 1 omitted),” “○○○ (name 2 omitted),” “○○○ (name 4 omitted),” “○○○○ (name 5 omitted),” “○○○ (name 5 omitted),” and “○○ (name 6 omitted).” (hereinafter “○○○” was omitted; where the name of the store is one, the name of the first immediate store of this case), (name 1 omitted), (name 2 omitted), (name 3 omitted), (name 4 omitted), (name 5 omitted), and (name 5 omitted) from the first place of business around June 2014, and (4) around June 27, 2014, respectively.

At the time of the conclusion of the instant franchise agreement, among the member stores of the instant franchise business, “○○○ (name 7 omitted),” “○○○ (name 8 omitted),” “○○○ (name 9 omitted),” “○○○ (name 10 omitted),” “○○○ (name 12 omitted),” “○○○ (name 12 omitted),” “○○ (name 13 omitted),” “○○ (name 14 omitted),” and “○○ (name 14 omitted),” and “○○ (name 14 omitted)” were omitted (hereinafter “○○”. In total, the name of the store was omitted), (name 7 omitted), around April 2014, (name 8 omitted), (name 9), and (name 14 omitted); and (4) around 21, 201; and (4) around 14, 201.

(2) From the above opening point to July 31, 2014, the average daily sales per square meter of each of the instant immediate member shops of this case are as follows:

(2) On December 2014, 2014, February 2014, 2014, 165,4015,520,520,52323,85719,62019,79,798 (name 2 omitted), 363,524, 1631, 205, 207, 36316, 205, 204 (name 1 omitted), 363,524, 1016, 204, 2014, 204, 2014, 205, 207, 207, 208, 2019, 798 (name 2 omitted), 363,524, 2016, 315, 2016, 7315, 2016, 2014

5,318,634 16,023 (name 9 omitted) points 278,817,6917, 377 (name 10 omitted) points 234, 23417, 23417, 2377 (name 10, 10, 214, 2626, 521 (name 7 omitted) points 181,521, 357 (name 8 omitted) points 507, 507, 1814, 2314, 3417, 23417, 37, 2424, 586, 521 (name 11,215, 219, 2319, 2415, 2519, 214, 16315, 25329, 164, 2516

(3) The Defendant prepared a statement of calculation of estimated sales for the first franchise store of this case (hereinafter “the statement of calculation of estimated sales for the first franchise store of this case”) to the effect that “the scope of conversion into sales for the immediately preceding business year of the first franchise store of this case reaches KRW 4,500,000 per 60 square day at the lowest of KRW 1,50,000 per day” (hereinafter “the statement of calculation of estimated sales for the first franchise of this case”). On August 6, 2014, the Defendant explained that the establishment of the first franchise store of this case is expected to have sales for the first franchise of this case as indicated in the statement of calculation of estimated sales for the first franchise of this case.

The Defendant prepared a statement of calculation of estimated sales to the second franchise store of this case (hereinafter “statement of calculation of estimated sales”) to the effect that “the scope of conversion of sales to sales of the instant 2 franchise store prior to the instant 2 store reaches KRW 6,000 per square meter at the minimum of KRW 11,00 per square meter.” On July 21, 2014, the Defendant issued the said statement of calculation of estimated sales to Plaintiff 2, and explained that the establishment of the second franchise store of this case is expected to be the sales at the highest and lowest level per day listed in the statement of calculation of estimated sales.

In the calculation statement of each of the instant estimated sales revenue, the following contents were written with regard to “the basis for calculation within the scope of converted amount into sales immediately preceding the business year immediately preceding the neighboring franchise store”.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

(4) The calculation statement of each of the instant estimated sales amount did not contain or attach any evidence supporting the actual sales amount of each of the instant immediate member shops or the calculation thereof.

(5) On August 19, 2019, the Defendant received a warning from the Fair Trade Commission on the ground that “the act of providing prospective franchisees with an estimated sales statement stating that the estimated sales amount was calculated based on the sales amount of member stores with a business period of at least six months immediately preceding business year even though the business period of the immediately preceding business year was not more than six months, constitutes an act of providing false or exaggerated information prohibited under Article 9(1)1 of the Franchise Business Act.”

C) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s delivery of each of the instant estimated sales statements, which was omitted or falsely exaggerated, to the Plaintiffs, constitutes a tort in violation of Article 9(1)1 of the Franchise Business Act.

(1) The scope of the converted amount of sales from the sales from the preceding business year to the neighboring franchise store under Article 9(5) and Article 9(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Franchise Business Act shall be calculated based on the value calculated by dividing the sales from the neighboring franchise store to the exclusive use area of the store by the "exclusive use area of the store" of the relevant franchise store. In such a case, the five " neighboring franchise store" which serves as the basis for the above calculation shall be limited to the store with the business period of not less than six months in the immediately preceding business year. In particular, among the five member stores, the small franchise store and the largest franchise store whose converted amount of sales from the preceding five member stores should be excluded in the final calculation process of

(2) However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that “the scope of conversion of sales to sales within the immediately preceding business year of the store adjacent to the store of this case” stated in the calculation statement of each of the expected sales in this case has taken into account the difference between the area of each of the stores of this case and the area of each of the individual stores of this case. This is either calculated on the basis of the average daily sales at the time of conclusion of each of the franchise agreements of this case (in the case of maximum sales) or calculated on the basis of the average daily sales at the time of concluding each of the franchise agreements

(3) As to the calculation statement of the expected sales of this case, the Defendant asserted that, in the case of the maximum sales in relation to the calculation statement of the expected sales of this case, (name 1 omitted) and (name 2 omitted), calculated based on KRW 3,441,432,430,439,971, which is the average daily sales in May 2014, the Defendant calculated based on KRW 1,796,131, which is the average daily sales in nationwide member stores in 2013. In the case of the maximum sales in relation to the calculation statement of the anticipated sales of this case, based on the average daily sales in relation to the calculation statement of the expected sales of this case from May 2014 to July 2014, the Defendant calculated based on the average sales in relation to the average sales in this case, which is the average daily sales in nationwide member stores in 2013, not the average sales in this case. However, even if the Defendant alleged that the average sales in this case was based on the information of the previous member stores, it did not constitute a nationwide average sales.

(4) The Defendant alleged that there was no franchise store in Incheon in 2013 in the franchise disclosure statement delivered by the Defendant to Plaintiff 2, and thus, it does not constitute false information. However, inasmuch as Plaintiff 2 was not provided by the Defendant with the basis for calculating the amount indicated in the statement for calculation of the expected sales of this case or any other objective data that could help compute the expected sales of Plaintiff 2’s franchise store of this case, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s delivery of the information disclosure statement in conflict with the statement for calculation of the expected sales of this case was immediately able to recognize the falsity of the statement for calculation of the expected sales of this case. The above argument by the Defendant is without merit.

(5) The expected sales of each of the instant stores, which the Defendant explained to the Plaintiffs, are likely to be sufficiently calculated without comparing and analyzing the size, location, etc. between each of the instant stores and the immediate member shops of the instant case.

(6) Examining the actual sales of the instant 1 member store: (i) the monthly average sales of KRW 13,807,50 [20,000 + KRW 12,868,400 + KRW 163,00 + KRW 20.68,00 + KRW 30,000 + KRW 12,863,40 + 160 + 10,00 KRW 85,00 + 36.6,00 + the average sales of KRW 40,00 for the pertinent 22,378,100 + 22,091,050 + 12,868,40 won + 10,852,800 + 7,805,00 won + the average sales of KRW 40,50,000 + 36.6,00,000 + 6,005,00 won during the pertinent period of 14.6,065.

Examining the actual sales of the instant 20 store: (i) the monthly average sales of KRW 19,196,08 [ [2,86,50 + 24,200 + + 24,200 + 16,295,90 + 16,47,900 + 13,67,600 + 16,67,900 + 136,60.68,000 + 60,000 for the pertinent period of 16,86,54,600 + 13,67,000 + 60.6,000 per 6,000 + 36,000,000 per 6,000; (ii) the average sales of KRW 639,6666,00 per day (=19,000) per 36,000 per 6,000 per 20,000.381.

4) Determination on the assertion that the franchise disclosure statement under the Franchise Business Act was not provided

The Plaintiffs asserted that, even though Nonparty 1, etc. provided an information disclosure statement under the Franchise Business Act only at the time of entering into each of the instant franchise agreements, they had Plaintiff 1 enter Plaintiff 1 on August 6, 2014 and Plaintiff 2 as if they provided each of them on July 21, 2014, it constitutes a tort, which is a violation of Article 7(3) of the Franchise Business Act, where the franchisor had the franchisor provide the information disclosure statement to the franchisor 14 days prior to the conclusion of the franchise agreement.

However, there is no evidence supporting the plaintiffs' above assertion, and rather, according to the evidence Nos. 3, 12, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, the plaintiffs 1 received the information disclosure statement containing the contents of the franchise business of this case from each defendant on August 6, 2014 and July 21, 2014, and signed the "certificate of receipt of the information disclosure statement" on the same day. Thus, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

5) Determination as to the assertion that a lease contract is concluded, a person’s test, and a equipment-related party’s detention

The plaintiffs forced the plaintiffs to enter into a contract through a consulting company under a contractual relationship with the defendant at the time of entering into a lease agreement, and forced the company selected by the defendant to purchase services and products necessary for the establishment of each of the instant franchise stores, such as interior services, furniture, electronic equipment, etc. The plaintiffs asserted that this constitutes a tort as a violation of Article 12 (1) of the Franchise Business Act prohibiting unfair transactions.

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant forced the plaintiffs to designate a business entity designated by the defendant to purchase services and products necessary for the establishment of each of the franchise stores of this case, such as brokerage companies of lease agreements, interior services, furniture, electronic equipment, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Rather, the following circumstances can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the above evidence, Gap evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 27, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 13, and the overall purport of arguments and arguments. In other words, according to each of the franchise agreements of this case, the defendant may allow the business entity designated by the defendant to act on behalf of the defendant (Article 26 (1)). However, according to each of the franchise agreements of this case, the defendant and the defendant can introduce the designated business entity that supplied main equipment to the plaintiffs (Article 27 (2)), but it does not necessarily seem to have been forced by the plaintiffs to receive the above introduction contracts with the other party to the contract of this case.

6) Sub-decisions

After all, the defendant is liable for damages arising from the delivery to the plaintiffs of the calculation statement of each of the expected sales of this case stated in the absence of major information about each of the franchise stores of this case and each of the immediate member stores of this case or false or exaggeratedly.

B. Scope of damages

1) Calculation of causation and amount of damages

In light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments and the facts admitted as seen earlier, namely, ① estimated sales of each of the instant stores and the amount converted into sales of each of the instant stores before each of the instant stores was the key factor to determine whether to operate each of the instant stores; ② the amount entered in each of the instant franchise agreements and the actual sales accrued during each of the instant franchise stores; ③ the Plaintiffs were not provided with objective data to review the estimated sales of each of the instant stores by the Defendant, Nonparty 1, etc.; and ③ the Plaintiffs were not provided with any of the objective data to review the estimated sales of each of the instant franchise stores by the Defendant, Nonparty 1, etc. without such tort, it appears that the Plaintiffs did not enter into each of the instant franchise agreements or move to the opening of each of the instant stores, or did not enter into such franchise agreements or at least any of such scale.

However, the above tort is a tort committed in the course of entering into each of the instant franchise agreements. The damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the above tort are limited to the expenses incurred in concluding each of the instant franchise agreements with the Plaintiffs believe that the entries in the calculation statement of the expected sales amount of the instant case are true without any falsity, exaggeration, or omission as to the main contents thereof. On the contrary, the expenses incurred in the course of operating each of the instant franchise stores following the conclusion of the instant franchise agreements are difficult to be deemed to be caused by the Defendant’s tort.

In full view of the respective descriptions and arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 13 and 14, the plaintiffs' opening expenses (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) incurred in concluding each of the instant franchise agreements can be acknowledged as follows.

Items of loss contained in the main sentence of this paragraph include plaintiffs 11,50,000 33,000,000 33,000,156,000 133,000,000 33,000, 11,500,500 33,450,000 3,450,000 3,40,40,000 367,427,423,000 63,000 63,70,000 67,000 67,000 63,50,000 63,50,000 7,000 6,30,50, 130,50,000, 130,80, 18, 205, 300, 300, 300, 108, 000.

The Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the purchase cost of Plaintiff 1, 1, 365,743 won for the purchase of bean, etc. paid by Plaintiff 1 on September 30, 2014, and KRW 26,409,363 won paid by Plaintiff 2 around August 29, 2014, KRW 2,930,638 won for August 31, 2014, and KRW 11,729,713, paid on September 30, 2014, shall be included in the opening business expenses under each of the instant franchise agreement. However, such expenses are more reasonable than the expenses paid for the conclusion of each of the instant franchise agreement, and thus, they are not included in the opening business expenses. The Plaintiffs’ aforementioned assertion is without merit.

Plaintiff 1 asserts to the effect that the purchase cost of the first-way goods paid by Plaintiff 1 was KRW 7,200,000, insurance loss amount to KRW 1,689,830, and insurance loss amount to KRW 1,689,830 under the first franchise agreement of this case. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Plaintiff 1 paid the above expenses, and the above assertion by Plaintiff 1 is without merit.

Plaintiff 2 asserted to the effect that the premium of KRW 40,00,000 for the instant 2 shop paid by Plaintiff 2, and the restitution cost of KRW 7,600,00 for the interior work pursuant to the instant 2 franchise agreement after the termination of the contract is also the commencement work cost of the instant 2 shop. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Plaintiff 2 paid the above expenses, and therefore, Plaintiff 2’s above assertion is without merit.

2) Limitation on comparative negligence and liability

In addition to the aforementioned facts and evidence and the purport of oral argument as follows: ① The calculation statement of each expected sales amount of this case includes information on the scope of expected sales amount of each franchise business and the basis for calculation; however, since it was made based on the data of the franchisor, it is time to determine whether to enter into the contract or not after sufficiently grasping the validity of the plan. (m) The scope of expected sales amount stated in this calculation statement is significant that it can be changed due to business district changes after execution of the franchise agreement, changes in demand for re-products, and differences in effort of the franchise business operators, etc.; ② The plaintiffs are indicated on the current status and separation distance of similar business types located adjacent to each of the stores of this case; ② It is reasonable to consider that the actual sales amount of each of the franchise stores of this case can vary from 00 to 10% before and after the conclusion of the franchise agreement to 20% before and after the conclusion of each of the contract or its neighboring circumstances; and ③ it is necessary to sufficiently analyze whether each of the plaintiffs' 20-1 and each of the franchise contracts of this case can be used to maintain the plaintiffs 2.

Ultimately, the amount of damages that the Defendant is liable to compensate for to Plaintiff 1 is KRW 70,829,610 (=236,098,700 x 0.3) and the amount of damages that the Defendant is liable to compensate to Plaintiff 2 is KRW 79,892,286 (=26,307,62 x 0.3).

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, with respect to Plaintiff 1, as of the date of delivery of each expected sales statement of this case, which is an illegal act, with respect to Plaintiff 1, the following day after the delivery of the statement of calculation of the estimated sales amount of this case, and each of the above amounts, the Defendant is obligated to pay 5% per annum under the Civil Act from May 17, 2019 to September 26, 2019, and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from March 6, 2019 to the date of delivery of the copy of the statement of calculation of the claim and the supplementary cause of claim, and with respect to Plaintiff 2, from March 9, 2019 to May 15, 2019 to the date of delivery of the copy of the application for change of claim and cause of claim.

3. Determination on the claim for damages due to nonperformance

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

After the conclusion of each of the instant franchise agreements, the Defendant did not perform its duty of supervision or guidance necessary for the opening points of each of the instant franchise stores, education necessary for the operation of each of the instant franchise stores, promotional support for each of the instant franchise stores, etc., and did not perform the obligation under each of the instant franchise agreements by supplying defective machinery or materials to the Plaintiffs. As such, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiffs KRW 50,000,000 as compensation for damages due to nonperformance, and delay damages.

B. Determination

In light of the records in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant is recommended to provide management guidance, such as business guidance and assistance, to the plaintiffs regarding opening and advertising activities (Article 22(1)1 and 3). The defendant, as a franchisor, is allowed to engage in advertising and promotional activities on a national and regional unit for the general activation of each franchise of this case (Articles 23 and 24). However, the above facts alone are difficult to deem that the defendant has a contractual obligation to provide specific publicity support to each of the franchise of this case, as alleged in the plaintiffs, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant failed to provide education necessary for the operation of each of the franchise of this case to the plaintiffs, or supplied machinery or materials defective to the plaintiffs, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant supplied them with machinery or materials defective to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claim for this part of this case is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each claim of the plaintiffs is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The judge Lee Jong-young (Presiding Judge) shall take effect as the suspension personnel.